Serpent God Statue

Matthew Downie's page

6,186 posts (6,199 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 5 aliases.


1 to 50 of 6,186 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
You can say that but it doesn't make any sense to me. Wisdom and intelligence are also "associated with magical aptitude" and only one is "cosmically associated" with mental fortitude: wisdom. If a spell takes a 'toll on mind/spirit', I don't expect charisma to help with the saving throw.

It doesn't make sense to me that Clerics use Wisdom for spellcasting (they should use Charisma, since they're basically asking a god nicely to give them more power) and that Sorcerers use Charisma (they should use Wisdom, which represents their insight into their own magical abilities). And it doesn't make sense that Charisma is for Use Magic Device (that falls into the insight/instinct region).

Charisma for Resonance is equally nonsensical, but it's consistent with the past, and helps to balance out a stat that is otherwise mechanically weak for most classes.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fabian Stretton wrote:
+5 Natural Armor {This is the BIG one}

Even if 3PP templates were allowed, this wouldn't help. The AC bonuses of the creature you're turning into don't affect you.

"Large animal: If the form you take is that of a Large animal, you gain a +4 size bonus to your Strength, a -2 penalty to your Dexterity, and a +4 natural armor bonus."

That's all you get.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I believe the game has a technical definition of 'worship' that requires your alignment to be within one step of your god. In order to get mechanical benefits of worshipping Sarenrae(such as feat prerequisites) you should not be evil.

But you can 'revere' any god(s) you like.

Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

I think Paizo would compete with D&D 5e just fine using 1st edition if they would market the following major advantages:

1. Printable, interactive and beautifully illustrated maps that you can play on during gaming sessions.

In my games, both PF and 5e, I've got into the habit of drawing maps on two of these stuck together, using dry-erase or wet-erase markers. I only draw the bits the PCs have seen, expanding the map as they explore, because otherwise I'm giving the players metagame knowledge. So when I'm running Jade Regent, I'll be consulting the castle map from the book (or a printout from the book/PDF) and drawing rooms one at a time.

Does Paizo actually provide a service that works better than this? Is that what this is?

That's kind of what the Master Summoner archetype is for.

It's also pretty annoying to other players, so if you're going for this strategy, be prepared to be kicked out of the game.

Without equipment or spells? That basically leaves feats and skill points, and I'm not sure either of those counts as minimal investment.

Acrobatics skill? Mobility feat tree (eg Spring Attack)? Get someone else to provoke AoO from your enemy before you move?

Since the Stupid alignments aren't in the rules, it's unlikely that they'd be explicitly covered by deities.

I'd recommend Azathoth, the "blind idiot god" for Chaotic Stupid. I don't know of a Lawful Stupid equivalent.

DragonAstik wrote:
Yes there is a chart it is here in the SRD. You have not lost your mind you just misplaced it.

Hey, guy writing in 2014: that's not Pathfinder, that's 3.5!

You're misleading the guy from 2010, if he's still reading this thread!

Well, it's not like healing with magic and wands was particularly difficult. And the version given above requires 2 skill ranks per level and a second feat, which is significant.

So, unlimited out-of-combat healing, for one feat? Interesting alternative for people who hate CLW wand spam...

Crayon wrote:
Therefore, my question is: Will it be possible to create characters on the lower end of PF1's complexity scale under the new rule-set?

Was this question about whether there was an equivalent to PF1's Fighter that had no daily resources to track, and was therefore pretty simple to run, and suitable for a newbie?

(Not that PF1 was ever that easy to learn; charges, move actions, five-foot steps, full attacks, reach, attacks of opportunity, combat manoeuvres...)

Garion Beckett wrote:
The reason my I am asking, is that if you take a Bone Golem which is CR 8. Now just increase it's size to colossal. Now because of it's size it is more powerful physically but HOW much more powerful?


Quick Rules: +2 to all rolls based on Str or Con, +2 hp/HD, –1 penalty on all rolls based on Dex.

It is increasing by 3 size categories, so we apply this three times. It gets +6 to hit and +6 to damage on all melee attacks. It gets +6 to CMB and CMD (unless you use the 'rebuild' rules). It has +66HP (unless you use the 'rebuild' rules). Reflex save is reduced by 3, and it gets -3 to hit with Bone Prison. Reach is bigger. CR is 11.

Cantriped wrote:

Let's not get too semantic about how many minutes their adventuring day actually lasted. We both should know that I was simply refering to it being a system that encourages the party to stop for Rest after the first meaningful encounter depletes their extremely limited (and hardcoded into the system) daily resources. In AD&D it was caused by limits on clerical spell slots, in PF2 it will be caused by Resonance.

Consider that the playtest group was only willing to 'nova' their RP when the GM flat out told them there was only going to be one encounter that day. Otherwise, no group with a collective brain would be willing push on with zero RP remaining, even if the plot demanded it. Meaning a GM would have to railroad them into continuing the adventure, at risk of a systemically encouraged TPK, or pace the 'game' exactly as the developers' intended, no faster, no slower... even if that pace is inappropriate to the setting or plot.

Well, the design goal is certainly that you are pushed by the story into continuing ("Save your friend who might be being tortured!"), but pushed by resource management into resting, and you have to balance this out by using your resonance and other daily resources sparingly. What the typical party will be able to manage in a day isn't obvious to me, but Paizo should be able to tweak the numbers to get it close to the traditional four encounters.

Vidmaster7 wrote:

I guess I'm mostly counting wearable items. I do see consumable by then and other little items. occasional +1 weapons so I guess i should of said 3rd level. but your kind off point.

I disagree with you on the random loot generators most of the ones I've found set that sucker to 4th level and You can hit it quite a few times before something magical pops out.

Random magic is rare, but you can buy magic items. At level 2 you typically have a wand or +1 armour, and some potions / scrolls. By level 3 you probably have a +1 weapon or similar. This is how the WBL system is intended to work.

graystone wrote:
As long as the magic item pool is the drink potion pool, I'm going to loathe it. it means I can't have minor 'fun' items because to takes away from things that'll keep me alive. Hat of disguise so my gnome looks like a halfling? nope, I may need a potion later. Apprentice's Cheating Gloves? I LOVE the cartrips but are cool roleplaying options worth not having magic armor on? Who is ever going to USE a feather token, or any other quirky item like that when it takes away from items worn and your healing/defensive consumables?

That's kind of how I feel about PF1. Hardly any of the quirky items ever get used, because they can be sold to buy stuff that actually helps you out in combat, or because they take up the slots that are needed for a cloak of resistance or other 'mandatory' item.

Mathmuse wrote:
1st level Cure Light Wounds is 1d8+1 hp restored, averaging 5.5 hp per spell. 3rd level (caster level) Cure Moderate Wounds is 2d8+3 hp restored, averaging 12 hp restored. That is more than double the healing and since we jumped up two levels, we want a full doubling in power. 5th level Cure Serious Wounds is 3d8+5 hp restored, averaging 18.5 hp per spell. That is only a 54% improvement, far short of the 100% improvement we needed. 7th level Cure Critical Wounds is 4d8+7 hp restored, averaging 25 hp per spell. That is only a 35% improvement over 5th-level Cure Serious Wounds. The healing spells don't keep up with the power level.

If we think of it in terms of the total healing a cleric can put out in a single day, the increase is quadratic.

EG, at level 1 the Fighter has 13hp and the Cleric can heal about 11HP from spell slots. At level 7 the Fighter has, say, 74HP and the Cleric can heal about 200HP from spell slots.

So for out of combat healing, the cleric keeps up with the curve, and the number of combats you can handle per day (even without wands) tends to increase, but as an in-combat action it becomes less efficient... until you get to Heal and then it suddenly gets more efficient again.

Kaouse wrote:

Wizard is easily the best way to build Batman.

Bruce Wayne = Normal form (Your apparent physical weakness only accentuates this disguise)

Batman Getup = Adjustable Disguise (who needs to be a Vigilante when you have this?)

Martial Capability = Emblem of Greed / Transformation (especially with the Idealize Discovery, since Batman is in some ways, an ideal)

Stealth Skills = Greater Invisibility / Penumbral Disguise / Impenetrable Veil (the last one is essentially the ninja capstone as a 10 min/level spell)

Bat Cave = Create Demiplane (Can't get more hidden than that)

Utility Belt = Insert other spells here.

Seriously, what more do you want?


Batman is the guy who has to use his wits to overcome his lack of superpowers.

Bruce Wayne = Your PC dressed in normal clothes.

Batman Getup = Your PC wearing a mask.

Martial Capability = Any martial class.

Stealth Skills = Stealth skill.

Bat Cave = A cave.

Utility Belt = Some items.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
My question is: WHAT is the problem that Paizo has with CLW wand spam?

As others have said: probably the way it makes it possible for a group to overcome encounters without using limited daily abilities, since the game is supposedly designed around attrition and finite resources.

For casters, spells are the primary limited daily resource. For martials, it's hit points. At least, in theory.

7 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:

So my other thread (which I haven't read since initially creating unfortunately) was meant to define what the problem was with wands of CLW spam. Is it the act of using a 1st level wand for 20 levels? Is it healing to full after every combat? Or is it relying on magic for between combat healing?

Unfortunately I don't think the thread really defined what the problem was. And I don't think this thread is going to do any better. Already in the first two posts we have a disagreement with what the actual problem is. I don't think this conversation will be particularly productive without Paizo confirming what aspect of wands of CLW spam they don't like.

Some people want a game where attrition is a serious problem and heavily restricts the number of fights you can manage in a day, and dislike the way a group can conserve resources by treating hit point damage as trivial. I suspect this is Paizo's main issue. But other people don't really care about that. (GM: "Aha! One of you used up your spells carelessly and now you all have to choose between setting up camp early and resting until the next day, or pushing on and probably dying!" Player: "Oh good, we get to stop having fun.")

Some people dislike the imagery of cheap wand usage ("My bard gets a wand from his bag of wands, jabs the fighter with it ten times, then chucks it away"), and others aren't bothered by that ("My priestess offers a prayer to Sarenrae as she kneels by the body of her ally, clutching her divine wand in one hand and tending to his wounds with the other.")

Some people dislike the economics of cheap wand usage ("Hey, let's stroll into the village shop and spend the equivalent of $300,000 on the magic wands they always have!") and other people aren't bothered. ("We restock. I'll cross 3000gp off the party loot.")

Some people dislike rolling lots of d8s after every battle ("So you're down 140HP... That's about half a wand's worth. I'll do five charges at a time; tell me when you're getting close to full. Five, eight, eleven, sixteen, twenty-three plus five is twenty-eight. One, three, nine, ten...") Other people just accept it.

So it's not surprising the other thread has gone on for hundreds of posts, meandering in all directions.

Nathanael Love wrote:
There are 8 schools of magic, and most of them are still only ever played for a slim handful of spells or abilities (Divination anyone? Only for the initiative bonus!)

Divination is pretty terrible for spells, but "can always act in the surprise round even if you fail to make a Perception roll to notice a foe" and "bonus on initiative checks equal to 1/2 your wizard level" are extremely strong bonuses.

Regular wizard:
The red dragon ambushes you, catching you completely off guard! He breathes fire on you in the surprise round, then beats you on initiative and full attacks before you can do a thing.

Divination wizard:
The red dragon ambushes you, catching you completely off guard! Nevertheless, you can act in the surprise round, and you get a 26 for your initiative roll, so you make the entire party fire resistant / teleport everyone to safety / create a wall of force before the dragon can do anything at all.

Why not a two-stat game?
A character sheet could look like this:


That means for all 'physical' rolls I get d20+4, and for all 'mental' rolls I get d20-1.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:

What still floors me is the people that will insist on rolling all their uses individually so they don't "Overheal" or something.

I'm sorry I'm not trying to say badwrongfun, but how other people play, with bloody spreadsheets instead of character sheets?

You don't use a spreadsheet for making your characters? Spreadsheets are good. They automatically calculate your CMB, CMD, etc. Saves a lot of tedious book-keeping.

To me, it sounds like you're engaged in an optimization puzzle just as tedious as the "How can we spend the fewest resources?" puzzle the game is built around:

"It would be slightly quicker if we got a Wand of Cure Moderate Wounds instead of two Wands of Cure Light Wounds, and would only cost an extra 3000gp!"
"But if we had two people using wands, we could heal two people at once!"
"No, the important thing is how many dice we roll at once. See, if we roll them one at a time, that's slow..."
"But if we roll too many, adding up all those numbers might be even slower..."
Who cares if it takes a few seconds longer or shorter for someone to do it the way they like doing it? If they think, "Is it worth a 15gp charge if I'm only 2HP from maximum?" is an interesting decision, let them have their fun.

Not that I've done it with dice for a long time. I just said, "Out of combat, wands of CLW heal 6 points per charge. Work out how many you need and cross them off."

And I tended to make sure they always had enough wands, because otherwise they might need to stop and rest in the middle of an adventure, and that really kills the pacing.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
The retroactive gaining of HP when CON is boosted seems like antiquated design.

I'd have said the opposite. This sort of thing sounds more antiquated to me:

GM: "You are infused with the power of the bear. Gain a +4 bonus to your Constitution, up to a maximum of 19."
Player: "Cool. How much HP do I gain?"
GM: "None. Only your Constitution at the time of level up matters."
Player: "How come when my Strength goes up I get stronger, but when my Constitution goes up I don't get harder to kill?"
GM: "The rules aren't there for your benefit."

Val'bryn2 wrote:
Same for Resistance.

Not really, since this is an immediate action.

Val'bryn2 wrote:
It isn't much of an action economy cost, but it is a cost.

It's no cost at all until you need your swift action for something else, which is rare for low level characters.

Val'bryn2 wrote:
After all, you can have Resistance up in a surprise round. Not so much for this one.

Why not? You could cast it every round while exploring.

Val'bryn2 wrote:
Defensively, it doesn't seem much stronger than Resistance, lasts for a lot less.

Does it last less? Unless you have some reason not to cast it every round, it's effectively permanent.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
But going purely from a game balance perspective, the Wis-based DC Avoron supplied looks best.

I think I'll also vote for Avoron's "spell DC". I have no idea if it's well balanced, but it seems like the intent of the rule is to provide a DC for all special creature abilities while polymorphing, not just the ones that aren't specified elsewhere.

Whirlwind says:

An affected creature must succeed on a Reflex save (DC 10 + half monster's HD + the monster's Strength modifier) when it comes into contact with the whirlwind or take damage as if it were hit by the whirlwind creature's slam attack. It must also succeed on a second Reflex save or be picked up bodily and held suspended in the powerful winds, automatically taking the indicated damage each round. A creature that can fly is allowed a Reflex save each round to escape the whirlwind. The creature still takes damage but can leave if the save is successful.

So should the DC be 10 plus half druid level plus strength modifier? Isn't that a more specific rule than the others quoted?

Or maybe the Polymorph rule supercedes it...

Is there any reason to think it's a typo? A +5 dodge bonus to AC against attacks made by traps is nowhere near as good as a +3 dodge bonus to AC against everything.

Seems wrote:
I'm assuming the vampire spawn can immediately give a command (as a swift action?) for the barbarian to attack his allies, instead of waiting to the next round?

Dominate Person says: "Changing your orders or giving a dominated creature a new command is a move action." I suppose you might get a free command when casting the spell?

Seems wrote:
Since I would judge this against the barbarian's nature, does that immediately give him a second roll to save, or is the initial command considered part of the first save? Would he get a roll each round?

"...any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus."

There's no exception for an initial command, so this should happen immediately. I'd suggest it only happens once per command given.

Seems wrote:
How well does he have to fight - would he have to use full attack, if possible, or would a single attack suffice?

If there's a common language, the dominator can force the target to do whatever he says. So unless the command is worded poorly, he will attack to the best of his ability, raging and full-attacking.

(Also: don't forget the power of Protection From Evil.)

deuxhero wrote:
Housecat wins CR 1/4th by a long distance.

Kobolds are CR 1/4, have better AC and HP, have darkvision, don't have the disadvantage of 0-foot reach, can make ranged attacks, and can craft traps. And they have better teamwork than the average cat.

Conclusion: the Kobold is the most overpowered being in the universe.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ultrace wrote:
-potentially with more total monetary value than all the mundane goods and real estate of the area.

That's actually not true. A house in a city are worth 1,290 gp, while a farmhouse + farm is 2,090 gp.

A Wand of CLW is pricey, but stuff under 1000 gp is cheaper than a house.

But think how many different items the settlement must possess for there to be a 75% chance of them having any given item.

Scene: An adventurer passing through a village pops into the local shop.
Adventurer: "I'm looking for an Oil of Versatile Weapon and a composite longbow with a +2 strength modifier and a masterwork cold-iron katana and some Four-mirror armor and a Scroll of Fleshworm Infestation and a wand of Cure Light Wounds. Do you have all that?"
Shopkeeper: "Sorry, we're out of wands of Cure Light Wounds."

Mike J wrote:
I’m not sure exactly what a “mob” is.

Slang from World of Warcraft (and therefore irritating to certain tabletop gamers). Derived from "Mobile Object". Means a non-player entity whose primary purpose is to be killed for experience, quest objective completion, or loot.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
Does your party take a side trek to the Devil's Platter to hunt down the Birdcruncher goblin tribe and end up stumbling across a bugbear cult in the middle of a fiendish ritual? That's going to throw a wrench in the suggested progression.

If I'm doing milestone levelling, they just won't level up any sooner as a result of this side-quest, even if they think they deserve it, because they haven't achieved the milestone requirement. It doesn't disrupt progression, though it might it disappoint the players by making level-up take longer than they expect. But they'll know it's a milestone game, so they ought to be able to handle it.

If anything, additional side-quests are a bigger problem for experience-based games:

They defeated the bugbear cult I added, so they level up early.
Now the printed adventure is too easy for them, so I make all the encounters roughly one CR harder for the next chapter.
This means they get more experience for everything, so they level up early again. So I make the opposition harder in the next chapter too, but that means they get more experience...

I do have a milestone problem with my current 5e Tyranny of Dragons game, however. For example, there's a bit where the characters level up, then arrive at a hunting lodge. They're supposed to level up again when they clear the hunting lodge. But: unless I change the story, there is no need for the party to go to the hunting lodge. They can just head to the nearest village, where the story continues. So if they avoid the hunting lodge, do I level them up without them doing anything, or do I leave them permanently one level behind? (This is one of the reasons I'm using XP again.)

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
You cannot make two AoOs against one foe for the same trigger, and "movement" counts as one trigger no matter how much of it they make.

Note that some things count as two triggers that sound like they could be just one:

FAQs wrote:

Ranged Touch Attack Spells and AOOs: When you cast a spell that allows you to make a ranged touch attack (such as scorching ray), and an enemy is within reach, do you provoke two attacks of opportunity?

Yes, you provoke two attacks of opportunity: one for casting the spell and one for making a ranged attack, since these are two separate events.
(Note that at spell that fires multiple simultaneous rays, such as scorching ray, only provokes one AOO for making the ranged attack instead of one AOO for each ranged attack. It still provokes for casting the spell.

Warped Savant wrote:
I don't want to have to make up extra fights just so that they're strong enough for the next part of the story.

My previous campaign was 'level up whenever I feel the party has earned it'.

My current campaign is a linear adventure with quite a lot of optional bits. I want the party to feel like they're rewarded for taking on the optional bits instead of skipping them, so I'm using XP again.

But I award a lot of XP for things other than fights. Information gained, friends made, areas explored, allies protected, traps avoided, hidden treasure found...

If I want the party to level up quicker, I just get more generous with that stuff. They're unlikely to notice, and it's less intrusive than forcing extra battles on the party.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The difficult bit isn't the characterisation. It's making the villain enough of a presence in the PC's lives that the players have the time to form an opinion. Too many Adventure Path villains feel like this:
Villain: "Aha! I ambush you! Make reflex saves!"
Cleric PC: "Channel energy! Get him!"
Villain: "I have an elaborate backstory, you know! I was rejected by my parents and raised by an Irrisen hermit-witch who plays no other part in this campaign!"
Fighter PC: "Full attack! 46 damage!"
Barbarian PC: "Full attack! 57 damage!"
Villain: "Argh... I die..."
Rogue PC: "Cool. We loot the monster's body."

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Meirril wrote:
Sure this messes up grapplers the same way that claws mess up disarm specialists and oozes mess up trip builds.

It's more significant as an anti-monster spell than an anti-PC spell. There are a lot of creatures in the game that rely on grapple / constrict / swallow whole. Freedom of Movement makes them far less threatening.

Is it so overpowered as I wrote it?

It takes two standard actions to activate - given its short duration, casting it before combat would effectively require the advantage of surprise. This makes it less convenient than Sleep, Color Spray, Grease, etc.

There are two dice rolls to be made before it can work - one to hit the right area, and then a saving throw against nausea. Given cover and range penalties, you could easily miss the target area, perhaps even nauseating your allies.

A nauseated creature could retreat. In a corridor situation, the only way to follow them would be to go through the cloud yourself. (And in a non-corridor situation, it provides very little battlefield control.)

A 5' radius is smaller than the area effect for Sleep or Color Spray (but the same as the area effect for Grease).

Another possible adjustment would be to have it nauseate opponents of up to 4HD, or sicken opponents with 5HD+.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
UnsEenAsianBeef wrote:
I definitely don't want it to be a "Your fun is wrong" type of discussion but because they have all played for so long they I feel as though they are all about optimization over actual fun.

It still kinda sounds like they're having fun with optimizing and you think their fun is "wrong". I don't know what your "actual fun" involves, but I suspect it's still possible with optimized characters.

If you are creating the opposition (as opposed to trying to run a prewritten adventure with minimal changes) a good starting point is a conversation with your players just to make sure everyone is on the same page - if you talk half your group into making "quirky but not too powerful" characters but the other half make minimaxed titans, that's a worse problem than all of them being too strong.

Ways to counter "game-breaking" builds:
(1) More enemies. (Slumber Hex might instantly KO the big scary giant, but isn't so effective against five big scary giants.)
(2) Stronger enemies. (If your AC is impossible for a CR 10 dragon to hit, what about a CR 14 dragon?)
(3) Magical enemies that can negate (or copy) the PCs' special powers.
(4) "Hey, that metamagic rod is breaking the game to the point of not being fun any more. Shall we say it just burned out and you find another object of equivalent value in the next room?"

Translated into Pathfinder-ese (without making any special effort to balance it for power), it would probably look like this:

School conjuration (creation); Level: Druid 1

Casting Time: 1 standard action

Components: V, S, M (a mushroom / toadstool)

Range: See text

Effect: cloud spreads in 5-ft. radius.

Duration: 2 round/level

Saving Throw: Fortitude negates; see text; Spell Resistance no

This spell turns a fungus into a throwable splash weapon with a 10 foot range increment.
The fungus must be thrown as a separate action after casting the spell. If it is not thrown before the duration expires, the enchantment is lost.

The thrown fungus creates a cloud with 10 foot diameter where it lands. The cloud lasts 1d3+1 rounds but can be dispersed after one round by any strong wind.

The cloud is visible but does not block vision. Living creatures in the cloud become nauseated on a failed save. This condition lasts as long as the creature is in the cloud and for one round after it leaves. Any creature that succeeds on its save but remains in the cloud must continue to save each round on your turn. This is a poison effect.

Talek & Luna wrote:
If every part of the game world is mapped out with very advanced countries then there is little room for classic dungeon crawls or monster threats to originate from.

Even if the world is mapped out in that much detail (Golarion isn't; how much do you know about Shenmen?) and for some reason the world-builders didn't leave any uncivilised areas, there can still be extra-planar threats, the Underdark/Darklands, necromancers and alchemists creating new monstrosities, cultists resurrecting evil gods...

Every adventure writer ever has managed to find a new source of threat or a new place to put a lost temple / haunted castle / demon prison.

Talek & Luna wrote:
For example, what prevents the Knights of Solamnia from rushing out to meet a threat that the PC's are supposed to handle?


They don't know about the threat, or underestimate it.
They are busy dealing with some other threat.
The PCs are the Knights sent to deal with the threat.
They're doing their best, but the threat is too powerful for them to defeat.
A traitor within their ranks is undermining their ability to act.
The GM has decided they don't exist / were recently exterminated in their own version of the game world.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

1. I think that, while Monks should certainly also be able to use weapons (and indeed, we know there's a Monk property, so we know they can), they should also pretty universally be good at unarmed combat. That's necessary to their thematic role, IMO.

I do think others should also be good at unarmed and unarmored combat, and would suggest an Archetype as an ideal way to make this available to everyone.

Alternatively, we could make the classic unarmed/unarmored monk an archetype.

That would encourage more variety in our ki-enhanced mystic warriors. Too many characters at the moment are simply "mundane" or "spellcaster".

Brother Fen wrote:
Do you have a source for that anywhere by chance?

It's not easy to prove a negative.

But there's a relevant designer comment here.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Meirril wrote:
If they have a climb speed they wouldn't need to make rolls.

That's the way I tend to see it played, but the rule says:

A creature with a climb speed has a +8 racial bonus on all Climb checks. The creature must make a Climb check to climb any wall or slope with a DC higher than 0, but it can always choose to take 10, even if rushed or threatened while climbing. If a creature with a climb speed chooses an accelerated climb (see above), it moves at double its climb speed (or at its land speed, whichever is slower) and makes a single Climb check at a –5 penalty. Such a creature retains its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) while climbing, and opponents get no special bonus to their attacks against it. It cannot, however, use the run action while climbing.

With a +8 bonus and the ability to choose to take 10 in combat, usually you don't need to worry about it, but extra slippery surfaces might be a problem.

AnimatedPaper wrote:
Game Master Q wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
thaX wrote:
6th edition, which will happen at some point, will likely abandon Bonded Accuracy and have the return of high magic campaign like the previous editions (including 4th edition). Items will likely not augment stats or give out bonuses beyond +3 to hit/dmg, much like what PF2 is likely doing, but the magical items will be a part of the game once again, not rare artifacts that a character may get about 10 times in his adventuring career.
THAT bugs the crap out of me, and why I can't take 5e seriously. Also the lack of specific item prices. I get people don't like MagicMart. But even if the items are once in a lifetime additions, I want a price tag.
There is one. It's in the DMG and the price is based on rarity.
No, there is not. There is a chart that lists a suggested price range for the DM to pick within. That is, in fact, a lack of a specific item price, and the source of my annoyance.

There are 'suggested' 5e prices, but they're silly.

A Potion of Flying allows you to fly once. It is listed as 'Very Rare'.
The Broom of Flying is 'Uncommon'. It allows you to fly all the time.
The suggested price of Very Rare items is 50,000gp.
The suggested price of Uncommon items is 500gp.

The only defence that can be made for the system is that there aren't supposed to be any magic item shops so it doesn't really matter because no-one is buying or selling. But if the prices are going to be that nonsensical, they shouldn't have bothered giving any.

More sensible 5e price list.

CrystalSeas wrote:
If you fix the broken math, look at how many of the issues you cite disappear.

This is an interesting question.

'Fixing the math' might solve the 'rocket tag damage' problem, but if high-level Wizards can simply Wish their problems away, that breaks a lot of possible stories.

And if everyone is starting at level 1, then a lot of games won't make it to level 15 just because of real life problems, TPKs, story coming to a natural end, etc.

So, for people who have played similar game systems (4e, 5e, etc) to high level:
Do you think the high-level math is OK?
Does that make high-level play happen more?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the point of the combat is to be flavorful, does it matter if it isn't draining party resources?

I find that usually people will cast spells even when they don't really need to, either because they want to Do Something Useful, or because they overestimate the danger of the encounter. ("Maybe these aren't just wolves, they're werewolves! Or maybe the real enemy is about to ambush us mid-battle! I'd better start buffing everyone, just in case...")

Arachnofiend wrote:
I'd love an AP that, say, starts at 6 and goes to 20.

People who dislike high-level play can sometimes drop the final chapters of an AP. ("That level 9 wizard you just fought was the ultimate villain and now that you've defeated him their evil plan has been foiled!")

But it's generally easier to skip the first chapter or two, since you don't have to deal with unresolved plot threads. ("You stumble upon the corpses of a murdered adventuring party; you find a diary on one of them, revealing that they were on a quest to defeat an evil organization called The Whispering Way, and they were looking for a powerful artefact hidden in a nearby forest...")

Diego Rossi wrote:
Sorry, but thatsound as "I want PF2 to be a E6 game." A very different argument and one that merit its own thread. it is out of bounds in a thread about playing a 20 levels game.

There are many reasons someone might dislike high-level Pathfinder play. Maybe they don't like tracking multiple buffs. Maybe they don't like the way characters can go outside the bounds of sensible numbers (AC 60+, for example). Maybe they prefer game-changing abilities like teleportation to be rare and limited.

And it's perfectly possible to imagine a 20-level system that doesn't work that way.

Going by the Monster creation guidelines, PF1 monsters increase their AC about 1.26 per level, and their 'high' attack modifier goes up about 1.47 per level between CR 1 and CR 20.

+1 per level seems reasonable as long as there aren't too many other bonuses.

1 to 50 of 6,186 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>